IOSR Journal Of Humanities And Social Science (IOSR-JHSS)
Volume 22, Issue 3, Ver. I (March. 2017) PP 78-84
e-ISSN: 2279-0837, p-ISSN: 2279-0845.
www.iosrjournals.org
Assessing Communication Apprehension And Implication For
Employability Among Mass Communication Students
Adeyemo, Saheed O. Adeyemi1
Ganiyu, Mutiu Adekunle2
Rosli Bin Muhammad3
Journalism Department Adebola Adegunwa School of Communication (LASUAASOC)
Lagos State University, Ojo, Lagos, Nigeria1
Department of Mass Communication
Al-Hikmah University, Ilorin, Kwara State, Nigeria2
Department of Communication, School of Multimedia Technology and Communication (SMMTC)
Awang Had Salleh College of Arts and Sciences Universiti Utara Malaysia, Malaysia3
Abstract:- Communication Apprehension is the feeling of anxiety concerning speaking with others.
Communication Apprehension (CA) prevents individuals’ ability to communicate effectively in communication
contexts. Employers of labour prefer graduates who can effectively communicate in the workplace without
apprehension. CA has been established as a barrier to communication and therefore has implication for
employability. This study assessed the communication apprehension of mass communication final year
undergraduates in Nigeria. A total of 405 respondents were surveyed from four tertiary institutions, namely:
Lagos State University (LASU), University of Lagos (UNILAG) Lagos State Polytechnic (LASPOTECH) and
Yaba College of Technology (YABATECH) in Nigeria. The data was analysed based on Personal Report
Communication Apprehension instrument (PRCA-24) by McCroskey (1984). The mean and SD result of the
four CA contexts assessed respectively show Group Discussion (M= 21.16, SD = 4.26), Interview (M=19.60,
SD=4.05), Conversation (M=21.51 SD=4.30), Presentation (M= 19.59, SD =4.53), while the overall (M= 81.35
and the SD = 13.34)indicating that most of the respondents were of moderate level of CA. This study gives an
insight into communication apprehension level of mass communication undergraduate students.
Keywords:- Communication Apprehension, Group discussion, Interview, Conversation, Presentation,
Employability
I.
INTRODUCTION
Lack of employability of graduates has remained an on-going issue in academic discourse and has not
seized for decades among scholars and employers alike. According to Jackling and De Lange (2009) the setting
and dynamics of the worldwide business environment has become so different that changes in skills needed by
employers from graduate applicants have become very apparent. Some of the basic skills that are considered
important include; communication competence, critical thinking, problem solving, team-work, leadership and so
on (OECD, 2011; Precision Consultancy, 2007; UKCES, 2009). But the most crucial according to Employers is
communication competence, perhaps the problem with this is communication apprehension (CA).
Communication Apprehension has been identified as a barrier to communication and therefore has implication
for graduate employment (Arquero & Tejero, 2009; Arquero & Tejero, 2011; Yazici, 2005; Zhang, 2002). And
quite a number of studies have established connection between the two variables (i.e Communication
Apprehension and Communication Competence) (Blood, Blood, Tellis & Gabel, 2001; Gałajda, n.d.; Devi &
Feroz, 2008; Rubin, Rubin & Jordan, 1997; Rosenfeld, Grant & McCroskey, 1995; Sallinen-Kuparinen &
McCroskey, 1991 ; Croucher, Rahmani, Sakkinen & Hample, 2016). In view of this, it was found necessary to
respond to the complaint, because it has been apparently established that employers prefer graduates who are
less apprehensive (Azevedo, Apfelthaler & Hurst, 2012 ; Bonk & Smith, 1998; Gammie & Joyce, 2009). And
as it appears there are few or no studies done in this area, particularly concerning the mass communication
graduates. Therefore, this paper assesses the communication apprehension of the 2015/16 final year mass
communication undergraduates with implication for their employability being the next workforce.
DOI: 10.9790/0837-2203017884
www.iosrjournals.org
78 | Page
Assessing Communication Apprehension And Implication For Employability
II.
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Communication Apprehension
Communication apprehension by definition is “the fear or anxiety associated with real or anticipated
communication with others” according to McCroskey (1977, p. 78). Also, McCroskey, Daly and Sorensen
(1976, p. 376) define it as “a broad-based fear or anxiety related to the act of communication held by a large
number of individuals”. Communication apprehension is a kind of disorder which affects majority of individuals
(Butler, 2004). The levels of anxiety or fear people experience in form of CA differs. It is associated with
anticipated or real communication with other individuals. Studies have shown that communication apprehension
influences communicative behaviors in terms of communication avoidance (Ahadzadeh, Sharif, Wei & Emami,
2015). People who are highly communication apprehensive are those whose apprehension about taking part in
discussions surpasses the anticipated benefits they feel they would derive in certain circumstances (McCroskey,
1970;Hassall, et al., 2013). Such persons usually, have negative perception of the resultant consequences of
communication, and as such prefer to avoid communication than getting involved, if they could do so, or
undergo pain multiple type of anxieties if they must communicate as a matter of compulsion. Researches have
shown that there is a barrier in communication that is referred to as communication apprehension (CA) which is
obvious in most individuals (Hassal et al. 2013; Ilias, Razak & Yunus, 2013; McCroskey, 1966; Miller &
Nadler, 2009). This of course includes graduates of all professions with no exception. Although, McCroskey
and Anderson (1976) examined the phenomena by employing various intelligence and personality measures to
establish an evidential relationship between intelligence and communication apprehension, but they found no
evidence with CA. But they are of the opinion that, even, though, both variables did not indicate any correlation,
yet, high level of CA could make individuals develop avoidance attitude, and this was explained with students
who would rather usually wish to sit at the back of the classroom than sitting in front during classroom lectures,
preferring modules that would prevent them from classroom participation and interaction, and avoiding to seek
tutors assistance. Definitely, this character limits relationship and prevents individuals communication problems
and challenges from being addressed, and invariably affect their communication skill development (Fordham &
Gabbin, 1996; Hassall, Arquero, Joyce, & Gonzalez, 2013). Verderber, Verderber and Sellnow (2010) stated
that although, many people often reason along anxiety of public speaking whenever the construct of
communication apprehension is being referred to, but in real sense there are four different forms of
communication apprehension (CA). Originally, CA was primarily thought to be trait-based. Anxiety related to
trait-like communication is considered as a predilection for communication anxiety which is relatively stable
across varying context, situations and audiences. Further current research has widened the construct to comprise
of certain state-like characteristics. State anxiety is peculiar to particular circumstances, contexts, and audiences
(Daly & Friedrich, 1981; Wernicke, 2005). Nevertheless, there is the prevalence of the belief that those states
are indicators of trait-like CA and other particular ones about individuals (McCroskey & Beatty, 1998, p.217).
CA manifests both in oral and written form.
2.4 Group Discussion
Conceptually, group discussion refers to informal discussion that involves a number of discussants
normally in group. It is a discussion that lasts for a period of time and mostly consists of few individuals who
relate with one another face to face, whereby each influences the other (Homans, 1950; Shaw, 1981; Cartwright
& Zander, 1968). Group discussion is a context of communication that is largely dependent on conducive
atmosphere that allows individuals in the group to register their feelings and experiences, regardless of how
other participants react (Hennink, 2007). In this study, it is operationalised as the ability of the communication
undergraduates selected for this study to participate in Group discussion context without communication
apprehension.
2.5 Interview
Interview is an evaluation method used in measuring individual applicant’s perception, Knowledge or
capabilities whether structured, conventional, behaviourial or situational. Interview is meant to evaluate
applicants’ attributes or traits. The procedure could be interpersonal (face-to-face) or by telephone (Bauer,
Truxillo, Paronto, Weekley & Campion, 2004; Blackman, 2002; Schmidt & Rader, 1999; Silvester &
Anderson, 2003). It could also be via video conference (Straus, Miles, & Levesque, 2001; Chapman, Uggerslev,
& Webster, 2003), as well as interactive voice response methods (Bauer et al., 2004), or written (Macan, 2009;
Whetzel, Baranowski, Petro, Curtin, & Fisher, 2003). Specifically in this study, it is operationalised as the selfperception of the ability of the mass communication undergraduates selected for this study to communicate in an
interview context without apprehension.
DOI: 10.9790/0837-2203017884
www.iosrjournals.org
79 | Page
Assessing Communication Apprehension And Implication For Employability
2.6 Conversation
This is a talk between two or more individuals during which ideas, feelings, and thoughts are shared. It
involves questions and answers as well as exchange of information( Dubberly& Pangaro, 2009; Katie & Slinn,
2008; The Pfeiffer Library, 1998).Conversation is an interactive process which requires constant listening,
sharing, and asking questions and negotiations (Stone, Patton & Heen, 1999). Conversation is a collective
engagement whereby two or more people employ linguistic terms and nonverbal signs to relaxation through
interaction. Dialogue for instance is a form of conversations among two parties. Face -to-face conversation is a
global practice in all cultures, and it provides an context for interactivity through which languages are explored.
Conversation may be mediated, through technology for speech making or sending text messages electronically.
Conversation is not just arrangement of messages spoken or written in turns. Rather, it is structurely arranged in
pairs contiguously (Brennan, 2010).
2.7 Presentation
Presentation is a formal delivery of information, ideas and thoughts usually in form of lecture to a
group of audience (Pearson, n.d.). It is a process that typically involves demonstration, persuasion and
communication.The importance of presentation skills for undergraduate has been acknowledged, as a result of
the need to interact through oral presentations, and display the capability to employ multimedia technology. A
very good awareness of the essence of presentation skills would motivate them and get them prepared properly
for communication challenges in the workplace. In this study, the presentation is considered as a context of
communication apprehension (CA), therefore, it is operationalised as the ability of the mass communication
undergraduates selected to make communicate through oral presentations with less or zero communication
apprehension.
2.8 Employability
Employability is defined as the ability to obtain, sustsain and change employment (Rae, 2007; NCIHE,
1997).“It is the ability of individuals to find and remain employed”(Sumanasiri, Yajid & Khatibi,
2015).employability skills development is suppose to be not only the responsibility of individual graduates, but
including the tertiary institutions and employers. However, individual graduates perception, time investment in
developing employability is very crucial (Nilsson, 2010). Nilson (2010) found that that hard, technical and
vocational skills are acknoeledged but they have less effect when compared to soft-skills and personality
qualities. Employability does not rely only on individual attributes, context, work environment, and other
variables determine individual’s employability. For this reason it is the collective responsibility of all stake
holders to contribute towards its development (Clarke, 2008). Modern worklife requires employability due to its
complexities and lack of job security (Nilsson, 2010). The lack of university degree to prepare graduates for
future professional work life intricacies, as made it incumbent on graduates themselves to rise to the occasion in
terms of employability skills development which what employers demand aside technical or hard skills (Nilsson,
2010). Since university degrees have less value nowadays and cannot solely guarantee employability then it
becomes questionable (Wellman, (2010).
3 Method and Findings
This study adopts quantitative and descriptive research method with survey research approach. The
data was obtained through questionnaire administered on final year mass communication undergraduates of four
tertiary institutions, which includes: Lagos State University (LASU), University of Lagos (UNILAG) Lagos
State Polytechnic (LASPOTECH) and Yaba College of Technology (YABATECH) in Nigeria. The study
population size was 510 and based on Kretche and Morgan (1970) the appropriate sample size is 226.
Nevertheless, in order to have a more reliable result, and make up for lost and invalid questionnaires, the sample
size was doubled (Gregg, 2008) so that the total number of questionnaires administered amount to 452. Out of
this a total 429 (94%) were obtained, 23 (5%) not returned and 16 (4%) invalid. Therefore, the total
questionnaires became 413. But after treating cases of outlier the balance left for this analysis is 405. Thus, the
total rate of response for this study is 91%. Out of this 8 (2%) cases were found to be outliers and this treated,
leaving a balance of 405 (89%) on which this study is based. The items of the Personal Report Communication
Apprehension (PRCA-24) measurement instrument developed by McCroskey (1984) was used in calculating the
level of CA, while Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) was employed in calculating the Mean and
SD of the CA contexts. The measurement scale is a five point Likert scales that ranged from 1 “Strongly
Disagree” to 5 “Strongly Agree”. The findings of this study demonstrate that majority of the respondents’ falls
within average communication apprehension (CA) and this has implication for employability, Although their
level is not high, however, there is the need to address the problem. Through application ofcertain treatmentsin
order to make them overcome their CA challenge. This could be addressed via the following ways:
DOI: 10.9790/0837-2203017884
www.iosrjournals.org
80 | Page
Assessing Communication Apprehension And Implication For Employability
a. Creation of a group support environment
b. Employment of systematic desensitization and relaxation techniques
c. Usage of cognitive rearrangement to enhance confidence
d. Use of exercises which involves public oral presentation assignments.
III.
RESULT
4.1 Descriptive Statistics of Respondents Personal Report Communication Apprehension
Table 4.1 shows the categorizations of CA level score range according to McCroskey (1984).
Table 4.1CA Levels Categorization by Score range According to McCroskey (1984)
CA
Range
Level
Scores from
24 - 55
Low
Scores from
Scores from
55 - 83
83 - 120
Average
High
4.2 Descriptive Statistics of Respondents Personal Report Communication Apprehension According to
Contexts
Table 4.2 reveals the mean and SD of respondents Communication Apprehension according to contexts in terms
of Group Discussion, Meeting, Interpersonal Conversation and Public Speaking. The Group Discussion M =
21.16 and the SD = 4.26. The Meeting Mean= 19.60 and SD= 4.05. Interpersonal Conversation M = 21.51 and
SD= 4.30 and Public Speaking M = 19.59 and SD= 4.53.
Table 4.2Statistics of Respondents PRCA Result according to Contexts
Contexts
N
Mean
SD
Group Discussion context
405
21.16
4.26
Interview context
405
19.60
4.05
Conversation context
405
21.51
4.30
Presentation context
405
19.59
4.53
IV.
OVERALL PRCA RESULT
4.3 Summary of Statistics of Respondents Personal Report Communication Apprehension
Table 4.3 shows the descriptive statistics of respondents Communication Apprehension, Mean, Standard
deviation, Minimum and Maximum respectively. The Mean value for this study is 81.85 and the Standard
Deviation = 13.34, while the minimum score = 48 and maximum score = 119. This shows that most of the
respondents have high communication apprehension.
Table 4.3Statistics of Respondents Personal Report Communication Apprehension
N
Mean
Std.
Minimum
Maximum
Deviation
405
81.85
V.
13.34
48.00
119.00
DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
Since,communication apprehension is a common phenomenon with all individuals.Indicating that,there
are no graduates without CA,and because, studies have shown that those with high CA are quick at changing
jobs due to inability to cope and perform in the workplace,reason why employersprefer employees with
lowlevelof CA among graduates (Petry, 2016). In view of this, the need to reduce undergraduates/graduates CA
level is very crucial, in order to facilitate their employability. Undergraduates CA level should be reduced to the
bearest minimum,so that they could be able to communicate effectively in various communication contexts,
such as; group discussion, interview, conversation and presentation after graduation. Undergraduates should be
taught the four stages of anxiety and how to overcome them. The anxiety stages include:Anticipation,
confrontation, adaptation and release.According to Witt et al. (2006), anxiety often get to its zenith at the
anticipatory stage. In view of this, anxiety managementtecniques should be inculcated in the undergraduates
andthey should be groomed in positive thinking,bymaking them see such situations as an opportunity for
expression, rather than avoidance. Other ways of reducing anxiety that should be imparted on them,include:
Speech building or planning (Metcalfe, 2012), desensitisation therapy; which requires designing an anxiety
DOI: 10.9790/0837-2203017884
www.iosrjournals.org
81 | Page
Assessing Communication Apprehension And Implication For Employability
hierarchy, andrelaxation training (Stevens, 2014). As established by findings,communication apprehension
begins in the mind as a psychological response, therefore,undergraduates psychological attitude towards
speaking should be addressed through cognitive restructuring strategy. Cognitive restructuring strategy, simply
changes how one labels the physiological responses that is being experienced at a moment (Beebe & Beebe,
2000). Furthermore, systematic desensitization can also be of helpin CAreduction. This empowersthe
individualin tackling frivolous fearsand develop ability to endure such situations. In conclusion, educational
policy makers should include these strategies in the schools’ curriculum,in order to reduce CA from beinga
barrier to effective communication among undergraduates/graduatesandconsequentlymakethem employable. For
the purpose of future research, researchers should consider investigating CA accross cultures and gender.
Andsince, this research is purely quantitive, future studies may adopta mixed modeapproach;combination of
quantitative and qualitative methods in order to get an indepth information and data.
REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
Ahadzadeh, A. S., Sharif, S. P., Wei, K. K., & Emami, H. (2015). Narcissism, Self-esteem,
Communication Apprehension, and Need for Affiliation: Difference between Social Networking Site
Users and Non-users. Taylor's Business Review (TBR), 4(2). doi: 10.7603/s40932-014-0002-z.
Arquero, J. L., & Tejero, C. (2009). Ambiguity tolerance levels in Spanish accounting students: A
comparative study. Revista de Contabilidad – Spanish AccountingReview, 12(1), 95–116.
Arquero, J. L., & Tejero, C. (2011). How well adapted are accounting students forBologna? A
comparative analysis of learning styles of Spanish social sciencesstudents. EDUCADE: The Spanish
Journal of Accounting, Finance and ManagementEducation, 2, 145–156.
Azevedo, A., Apfelthaler, G., & Hurst, D. (2012). Competency development in busi-ness graduates: An
industry-driven approach for examining the alignment ofundergraduate business education with industry
requirements. The Interna-tional Journal of Management Education, 10(1), 12–28.
Bauer, T. N., Truxillo, D. M., Paronto, M. E., Weekley, J. A., & Campion, M. A. (2004). Applicant
reaction to different selection technology: Face-to-face, interactive voice response, and computed assisted
telephone screening interviews. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 12(135-148).
Beebe, S.A., & Beebe, S. J. (2000). Public speaking: An audience centered approach. Boston, MA: Allyn
& Bacon.
Blood, G. W., Blood, I. M., Tellis, G., & Gabel, R. (2001). Communication apprehension and selfperceived communication competence in adolescents who stutter. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 26(3),
161–178. doi: doi:10.1016/S0094-730X(01)00097-3.
Bonk, C. J., & Smith, G. S. (1998). Alternative instructional strategies for creative andcritical thinking in
the accounting curriculum. Journal of Accounting Education,16(2), 261–293.
Brennan, S. E. (2010). Conversation and dialogue. To appear in H. Pashler (Ed.),.Encyclopedia of the
Mind. SAGE Publications.
Butler, M. M. (2004). Communication apprehension and its impact on Individuals in the work place.
(Doctoral
dissertation,
Howard
University,
United
States).
Retrieved
from:
http://sunzi.lib.hku.hk/ER/detail/hkul/3520421.
Cartwright, D., & Zander, A. (eds). (1968). Group dynamics: Research and theory 3e. London: Tavistock
Publications.
Chapman, D. S., Uggerslev, K. L., & Webster, J. (2003). Applicant reactions to face-to-face and
technology-mediated interviews: A field investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 944-953.
Clarke, M. (2008). Understanding and managing employability in changing career contexts. Journal of
European
Industrial
Training,
32(4),
258-284.
doi:
10.1108/03090590
810871379,
10.1108/00400910710754435, 10.1108/014254 50810843320, 10.1108 /00483480710716704.
Croucher, S., Rahmani, D., Sakkinen, K., & Hample, D. (2016). CommunicationApprehension, SelfPerceived Communication Competence, and Willingness to Communication in Singapore. Journal of
Intercultural Communication(40).
Daly, J. A., & Friedrich, G. W. (1981). The development of communication apprehension: A
retrospective analysis of contributory correlates. Communication Quarterly, 29(4), 243-255.
Devi, I., & Feroz, F. S. (2008). Oral communication apprehension and communicative competence
among electrical engineering undergraduates in UTeM. Journal of Human Capital Development, 1(1).
Dubberly, H., & Pangaro, P. (2009). What is conversation? Can we design for effective conversation?
Modeling
Forum,
XVI(Retrieved
from:
http://www.
dubberly.
com/wpcontent/uploads/2009/05/ddo_article_whatisconversation.pdf).
Fordham, D., & Gabbin, A. (1996). Skills versus apprehension: Empirical evidence on oral
communication. Business Communication Quarterly, 59(3), 88-97.
Gałajda, D. (n.d.). Perceived competence and communication apprehension:The affective variables of
willigness to communicate in L1 and Fl.
DOI: 10.9790/0837-2203017884
www.iosrjournals.org
82 | Page
Assessing Communication Apprehension And Implication For Employability
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35]
[36]
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40]
[41]
[42]
[43]
[44]
[45]
[46]
[47]
Gammie, E., & Joyce, Y. (2009). Competence-based approaches to the assessmentof professional
accountancy training work experience requirements: The ICA Sexperience. Accounting Education: An
International Journal, 18(4-5), 443–466.
Gregg, M. B. (2008). Field epidemiology (3rd ed). Oxford University Press, Inc.
Hassall, T., Arquero, J. L., Joyce, J., & Gonzalez, J. M. (2013). Communication apprehension and
communication self-efficacy in accounting students Asian Review of Accounting (Vol. 21, pp. 160-175).
Hassall, T., Arquero, J. L., Joyce, J., & Gonzalez, J. M. (2013). Communication apprehension and
communication self-efficacy in accounting students Asian Review of Accounting (Vol. 21, pp. 160-175).
Hennink, M. M. (2007). International focus group research: A handbook for the health and social
sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Homans, George C. (1950). The Human Group. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.
Ilias, A., Razak, M. Z. A., & Yunus, N. K. Y. (2013 ). Communication apprehension (CA): A case of
accounting students. International Journal of Independent Research and Studies - IJIRS 2(1), 16-27
Jackling, B., & De Lange, P. (2009). Do Accounting Graduates’ Skills Meet The Expectations of
Employers? A Matter of Convergence or Divergence. Accounting Education, 18(4-5), 369-385. doi:
10.1080/09639280902719341.
Katie, H., & Slinn, J. (2008). The concept and practice of conversation in the Long Eighteenth Century,
1688-1848,.Cambridge Scholars Publishing Angerton Gardens, Newcastle, NE5 2JA, UK.
Kretche, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational
and Psychological Measurement, 30, 607-610.
Macan, T. (2009). The employment interview: A review of current studies and directions for future
research. Human Resource Management Review, 19(3), 203-218. doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.03.006.
McCroskey, J. C. (1966). Communication apprehension: What have we learnt in the last four decades.
Pacific and Asian Communication Association, 12(2), 157 - 171.
McCroskey, J. C. (1970). Measures of communication-bound anxiety. Speech Monographs, 37, 269-277.
McCroskey, J. C. (1984). The communication apprehension perspective. In J. A. Daly & J. C.
McCroskey. (Eds.). Avoiding communication: Shyness, reticence, and communication apprehension. 1338, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
McCroskey, J. C., & Andersen, J. F. (1976). The relationship between communication apprehension and
academic achievement among college students. Human Communication Research, 3, 73-81.
McCroskey, J. C., & Beatty, M. J. (1998). Communication apprehension. In J. C. McCroskey, J. A. Daly,
M. M. Martin, and M. J. Beatty (Eds.). Communication and personality, 215-232. Cresskill, New Jersey:
Hampton Press.
McCroskey, J. C., & Kretzschmar, M. M. (1977). Communication apprehension and marital
relationships of college graduates: An exploratory investigation.Paper presented at the Eastern
Communication Association, New York City.
McCroskey, J. C., Daly, J. A., & Sorensen, G. (1976). Personality correlates of communication
apprehension: A research note. 2(4), 376-380.
Metcalfe, S. (2012). Cengage advantage books: Building a Speech. Nelson Education.
Miller, M. T., & Nadler, D. P. (2009). Communication Apprehension Levels of Student Governance
Leaders. Retrieved from:http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltex t/ED505141. pdf, 1-11.
Morreale, S. P., Osborn, M. M., & Pearson, J. C. (2000). Why communication is important: A rationale
for the centrality of the study of communication. Journal ofthe Association for Communication
Administration, 29, 1-25.
NCIHE. (1997). Higher Education in the learning society Norwich: HMSO.
Nilsson, S., & Ekberg, K. (2013). Employability and work ability: returning to the labour market after
long-term absence. Journal of Prevention, Assesment and rehabilitation, 44(4), 449-457. doi:
10.3233/WOR-2012-1402
OECD Skills Outlook. (2013). The Skills Needed for the 21st Century. First Results from the Survey of
Adult Skills, 45-54.
Pearson. (n.d.). Speaking in public: Speech delivery. Retrieved from: https://catalogue.
pearsoned.co.uk/assets/hip/gb/hip_gb_pearsonhighered/samplechapter/0205627870.pdf.
Petry, A. C. (2016). Communication apprehension affects performance (Masters Thesis). John Carroll
University. retrieved from: http://collected.jcu .edu/cgi /viewcontent.cgi?article= 1048&context=
mastersessays, 49, 1-55.
Precision Cosultancy. (2007). Graduate employability skills: A report for the
business, industry and higher education collaboration council. Australia. Retrieved from
http://www.dest.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/E58EFDBE-BA83-430E-A541.
DOI: 10.9790/0837-2203017884
www.iosrjournals.org
83 | Page
Assessing Communication Apprehension And Implication For Employability
[48]
[49]
[50]
[51]
[52]
[53]
[54]
[55]
[56]
[57]
[58]
[59]
[60]
[61]
[62]
[63]
[64]
[65]
[66]
[67]
Rae, D. (2007). Connecting enterprise and graduate employability: Challenges to the higher. education
culture and curriculum? Education + Training, 49(8/9), 605-619. doi: 10.1108/00400910710834049.
Rosenfeld, L. B., Grant, C. H., & McCroskey, J. C. (1995). Communication apprehension and selfperceived communication competence of academically gifted students. Communication Education, 44.
Rubin, R. B., Rubin, A. M., & Jordan, F. F. (1997). Effects of Instruction on Commun ication
Apprehension and Communication Competence. Communication Education, 46(2), 104-114. doi:
10.1080/03634529709379080.
Sallinen-Kuparinen, A., & McCroskey, J. C. (1991). Willingness to communicate, commu nication
apprerehension, introversion, and self-reported communication competence: Finish and American
comparison. Communication Research Report, 8, 56-64.
Schmidt, F. L., & Rader, M. (1999). Exploring the boundary conditions for interview validity: Metaanalytic validity findings for a new interview type. Personnel Psychology, 52, 445−464.
Shaw, M. E. (1981). Group dynamics: The psychology of small group behaviour. New York: McGrawhill.
Silvester, J., & Anderson, N. (2003). Technology and discourse: A comparison of face-to-face and
telephone employment interviews. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11, 206−214.
Stevens, T. G. (2014). Self-Desensitization Instructions: The most proven method to reduce phobias,
anxiety, and fear. Retrieved from: http://web.csulb .edu/~tstevens /Desensit.htm.
Stone, D., Patton, B., & Heen, S. (1999). Difficult conversations: How to discuss what matters most.
Harvard Negotiation Project.
Straus, S. G., Miles, J. A., & Levesque, L. L. (2001). The effects of videoconference, telephone, and faceto-face media on interviewer and applicant judgments inemployment interviews. Journal of Management,
27, 363−381.
Sumanasiri, E. G. T., Yajid, M. S. A., & Khatibi, A. (2015). Review of literature on Graduate
Employability. Journal of Studies in Education, 5(3), 75. doi: 10.5296/jse.v5i3.7983.
The Pfeiffer Library. (1998). Basic communication model. Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer, 25(2).
UK Commission For Employment and Skills. (2009). The Employability Challenge: Full Report.
Retrieved from http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov. uk/+/http:/www.ukces.org. uk/upload/pdf/
EmployabilityChallengeFullReport.pdf.
Verderber, K. S., Verderber, R. F., & Sellnow, D. D. (2010). Communicate! Wadsworth, Cengage
Learning, International Student Edition.
Wellman, N. (2010). The employability attributes required of new marketing graduates. Marketing
Intelligence & Planning, 28(7), 908-930. doi: 10.1108/026 345010 11086490. 10.1108/004009
10710754435, 10.1108/00400911011037355, 10.1108/ET-07-2012-0077.
Wernicke, H. (2005). A study investigating the correlation between teaching assistants’ communication
apprehension in the college classroom and student perceptions of teaching assistant’s communication
apprehension (Master thesis, Washington State University).
Whetzel, D. L., Baranowski, L. E., Petro, J. M., Curtin, P. J., & Fisher, J. F. (2003). A written structured
interview by any other name is still a selection instrument. Applied H.R.M. Research, 8, 1−16
Witt, P. L., Brown, K. C., Roberts, J. B., Weisel, J., Sawyer, C., & Behnke, R. (2006). Somatic anxiety
patterns before, during and after giving a public speech. Southern Communication Journal, 71, 89.
Yazici, H. J. (2005). A study of collaborative learning style and team learning perfor-mance. Education +
Training, 47(3), 216–229.
Zhang, L. (2002). Thinking styles: Their relationships with modes of thinking andacademic performance.
Educational Psychology, 22(3), 331–348.
DOI: 10.9790/0837-2203017884
www.iosrjournals.org
84 | Page